Department of Public Works and Planning
Andrew E. Richter, Interim Director
Planning Commission Staff Report
Agenda Item No. 3
April 22, 2004
SUBJECT:
Initial Study Application No. 5026
Variance Application No. 3771
Allow creation of a 3.11-acre parcel and a
1.74-acre parcel from a 4.85-acre parcel in
the AE-20 (Exclusive Agriculture, 20-acre
minimum) Zone District and allow the 1.74acre parcel without road frontage.
LOCATION:
On the southwest corner of East Reno and
Auberry Roads approximately two and onehalf miles northeast of the City of Fresno
(12685 Auberry Road) (SUP. DIST. 5) (APN
580-010-25s).
Applicant : Gerald McKune
Owner:
Anita McKune
STAFF CONTACT:
Jane Gray, Planning and Resource Analyst
(559) 488-3933
William Kettler, Senior Staff Analyst
(559) 262-4241
RECOMMENDATION:
Deny Variance Application No. 3771 and direct the Secretary to prepare a resolution
documenting the Commission’s action.
EXHIBITS:
1.
Location Map
2.
Existing Land Use Map
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION
2220 Tulare Street, Sixth Floor / Fresno, California 93721 / Phone (559) 262-4055 / 262-4029 / 262-4302 / 262-4022 FAX 262-4893
Equal Employment Opportunity • Affirmative Action • Disabled Employer
3.
Surrounding Zoning Map
4.
Site Plan
5.
Applicant’s Variance Findings
6.
Initial Study
7.
Required Variance Findings
PROJECT DESCRIPTION / OPERATIONAL STATEMENT:
Listed below are the key features of the project based on information contained in the
applicant’s site plan and submitted Variance findings (see Exhibits 4 and 5).
Existing Improvements:
•
a single-family residence;
•
a septic system;
•
a well;
•
driveway;
•
propane tank;
•
shed;
•
barbed wire fence; and
•
a power pole
Proposed (Future) Improvements (1.74-acre parcel):
•
a residence; and
•
a driveway
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
An Initial Study was prepared for the project by staff in conformance with the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on the Initial Study, staff
has determined that a Negative Declaration is appropriate.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
Notices were sent to 38 property owners within one quarter-mile of the subject property
exceeding the minimum notification requirements prescribed by the California
Government Code and County Zoning Ordinance.
Staff Report – Page 2
PROCEDURAL CONSIDERATIONS / BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
A Variance application may be approved only if four findings specified in the Zoning
Ordinance Section 877 are made by the Planning Commission.
The decision of the Planning Commission on a Variance is final unless appealed to the
Board of Supervisors within 15 days of the Commission’s action.
KEY INFORMATION PERTINENT TO STAFF ANALYSIS
•
Project Location:
On the southwest corner of N. Auberry and E. Reno
Roads
•
Use of Subject Property:
Single-family residence
•
Surrounding Land Uses:
Field crops, grazing lands, vacant lots and
single-family residences
• Surrounding Parcel Sizes:
2.1-acres to 454.68-acres
•
Nearest Residence:
Approximately 340 feet to the south
•
General Plan Designation:
Agriculture
•
Zoning:
AE-20 (Exclusive Agriculture, 20-acre minimum)
Zone District
•
Development Standards:
165 feet of public road frontage (for parcels less than
5-acres); minimum setbacks to property lines
(35’ front, 30’ side, 30’ rear)
•
Public Road Frontage:
N. Auberry Road (existing)
•
Public Road Access:
N. Auberry Road and E. Reno Road
•
Road Classification:
N. Auberry Road (Arterial) / E. Reno Road (Private)
ANALYSIS / DISCUSSION:
Background
The subject property is located in the AE-20 (Exclusive Agriculture, 20-acre minimum
parcel size) Zone District and has an agricultural land use designation. The parcel is
currently legal non-conforming in size for the AE-20 Zone District. The size of the parcel
as well as many other non-conforming parcels in the area (which are less than 20acres), is resultant of the previous A-1 Zone District in which the minimum parcel size
Staff Report – Page 3
was 2.3 acres. The area was rezoned in 1976 to the AE-20 Zone District as part of a
broad scale rezoning following adoption of the updated General Plan.
The applicant’s mother (who is the property owner) currently resides in a home on the
subject parcel. The applicant proposes to split the parcel into a 3.11-acre parcel where
his mother will continue to reside and construct a home for himself and his family to live
in on the remaining 1.74-acre parcel.
General Plan Policies
The subject 4.85-acre parcel is designated Agriculture in the General Plan. A major
focus of the General Plan is to protect areas designated Agriculture and restrict
encroachment of incompatible land uses. The 2000 General Plan update strengthened
the commitment to agriculture by adding a number of policies, as well as carrying
forward the policy which requires a minimum parcel size of 20 acres in areas
designated Agriculture.
Policy LU-A.6 states that the County shall maintain twenty (20) acres as a minimum
permitted parcel size in areas designated Agriculture, with certain exceptions.
Exceptions noted in the General Plan apply to the creation of home-site parcels for
purposes of financing construction of a residence, creation of a home-site parcel for a
relative involved in the farming operation, and retention of a home-site for property
owners who owned the property prior to the implementation of these policies (1976).
Only one parcel for a relative involved in the farming operation is allowed per 20 acres.
None of these exceptions apply to the subject application.
Policy LU-A.7 states, that the County shall generally deny requests to create parcels
less than the size specified by Policy LU-A.6 based on concerns that these parcels are
less viable economic farming units, and that the resultant increase in residential density
increases the potential for conflict with normal agricultural practices on adjacent parcels.
Evidence that the affected parcel may be an uneconomic farming unit due to its current
size, soil conditions or other factors are not the criteria to be considered a sufficient
basis to grant an exception. The decision-making body shall consider the negative
incremental and cumulative effects such land divisions have on the agricultural
community.
An additional consideration is General Plan Policy LU-H.8. The project site is located
within the preliminary study area for the Friant-Millerton Regional Plan, the creation of
which is directed by Plan Policy LU-H, which states:
In the near-term to mid-term, planning and development in the area should focus
on expanding and enhancing the area’s recreational activities and resources. In
the long-term, the area may be suitable for urban development as the
unincorporated county’s largest remaining areas without productive agricultural
soils near the Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area and recreational and scenic
resources.
Staff Report – Page 4
Policy LU-H.8 further states that the regional plan should address suitability of the area
for future long-term urbanization. Staff believes that the current proposal, if approved,
may create conflicts with the proposed Friant-Millerton Regional Plan. Development
within the Regional Plan Boundary may be premature at this time.
General Plan Policy PF-C.17 states that prior to the consideration of any discretionary
project related to land use, a water supply evaluation will be undertaken. This will
determine if the water supply is adequate and sustainable as well as the impact that use
of the proposed water supply will have on other users in the area and greater Fresno
County. The subject parcel is located in an area known to be water deficient. The
County Geologist reviewed the subject project and stated that the construction of one
additional residence resultant of the approval of this application will not significantly
impact water resources.
The applicant proposes to waive public road frontage on the proposed parcel. General
Plan Policies do not specifically address requirements for public road frontage,
however, there are policies addressing access to and from Arterials. The property is
located between Auberry and Reno roads. Auberry is classified as an Arterial. General
Plan Policy states that direct access from an arterial to an abutting property, to maintain
highway capacity and safety, shall be restricted through application of design
requirements of new development. Therefore, access to the proposed 1.74-acre parcel
would have to be from Reno Road, which is a private road. This is discussed in further
detail in the Access and Traffic section of the report.
Based on the above staff has determined that the proposal is not consistent with the
General Plan.
Ordinance Compliance
The AE-20 Zoning District requires a minimum 20-acre parcel size. Approval of this
Variance application will result in the creation of two parcels, both less than the required
minimum parcel size for the Zone District.
Parcels less than five acres require 165 feet of public road frontage. The subject
Variance application incorporates the request to waive public road frontage for the 1.74acre parcel. Access to the proposed parcel would be via Reno, a private road. This is
discussed in more detail in the Access and Traffic portion of the report.
With the exception of minimum parcel size and road frontage, all other development
standards are met through this application.
Exceptional and Extraordinary Circumstances, Neighborhood Compatibility
In order to make Finding 1, an exceptional and extraordinary physical circumstance
must be present that does not apply generally to other identically zoned property in the
Staff Report – Page 5
vicinity. For Finding 2 to be made, the applicant must demonstrate that the Variance is
necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
applicant, and such right is possessed by other property owners under like conditions in
the vicinity having the identical zoning classification.
In support of Finding 1, exceptional and extraordinary circumstances, the applicant
states that the property has been in his family for nearly 40 years and that it is his desire
to keep the property in his family. He also states that, “The proposed property split will
be along a ridge on the property that acts as a natural property line. This ridge sections
off a portion of the property into a large field, without trees, that requires bi-annual
maintenance (mowing of grass) in an area approximately two acres, to keep it from
being a fire hazard. This parcel is also unique to those in the immediate vicinity in that it
is almost completely free of trees and plants. By allowing this Variance, I will be able to
plant trees on this land, which will have an extremely positive impact on the ecosystem.”
The County recognizes the applicant’s desire to keep the parcel in his family. In some
cases, a parcel division can result in a family member retaining a portion of a large
family holding when the family is no longer able to afford or maintain the parcel. In this
case, the existing parcel is less than five acres in size and the applicant has identified
routine maintenance as one of the physical circumstances related to the nature of the
parcel. Staff does not believe that maintenance of a five-acre parcel should warrant the
granting of the Variance.
Staff conducted a site visit and in terms of the unique nature of the parcel as identified
by the applicant (the ridge), staff was not able to discern any such characteristic. The
elevation of the property gradually increases upward toward the northwest, however,
there is no physical demarcation along the proposed property line. Therefore, staff
believes that this does not constitute an exceptional or extraordinary circumstance. It is
not hampering the applicant from accessing the area or maintaining it and in no way
interferes with the functionality of the land. Moreover, the applicant clearly states, “by
allowing this Variance, I will be able to plant trees on this land”. Granting a Variance
does not aid the applicant in planting trees. Nothing precludes the applicant from
currently planting trees on the parcel. Again, upon site visit staff was unable to identify
a ridge on the property significant enough to necessitate a Variance.
Finding 2 requires the applicant to demonstrate that the Variance is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right, which is possessed by other
property owners under like conditions in the vicinity having identical zoning
classification. In support of Finding 2, the applicant states that historically (the area
used to be known as “Redwood Park”) people in the area have been able to pass on
land to their children for the purpose of building a home and that he will also be able to
do the same, given that the Variance is granted. Moreover, as his mother is advancing
in years and she currently lives on the property, she will be able to live close to him and
the property will be maintained. The applicant states that it is his mother’s wish to gift
deed a parcel of land to him and cites other Variances in the area.
Staff Report – Page 6
“Redwood Park” is an area recorded in 1909 and is no longer applicable to the current
zoning standards. Many of the other parcels in the area which, are less than 20 acres
in size, were created under the previous A-1 Zone District which allowed a minimum
parcel size of 2.3 acres. The area was rezoned in 1976 to the AE-20 Zone District as
part of broad scale rezoning following adoption of the updated General Plan. Therefore
the applicant’s claim, while historically correct, does not reflect the current situation
since smaller parcels in the area are largely a result of zoning prior to 1976.
In response to the applicant’s citing of other Variances, staff’s research revealed that
within one-quarter mile of the subject property, a total of four Variance applications were
approved and one denied since 1995. Staff notes however, that each Variance
application is considered based upon a unique set of circumstances associated with
that particular parcel. Other Variances in the area cannot be viewed as precedent
setting or grounds for subsequent Variance approval.
In reviewing a Variance application, staff considers alternatives that would avoid the
need for a Variance. In this case, a Director Review and Approval application could be
used to construct a second residence on the existing 4.85-acre parcel given the
proposed residence does not exceed 2,000-square feet.
Based upon the information stated above, staff does not believe that Findings 1 and 2
can be made with regard to the proposed parcel size.
With regard to the road frontage portion of the Variance, the Zoning Ordinance requires
that parcels of less than five acres in size in the AE-20 District have 165 feet of public
road frontage. This standard serves to restrict the creation of landlocked parcels as well
as ensuring that roads serving properties are adequately constructed and maintained.
Moreover, waiving the public road frontage requirement generally places additional
traffic on private roads, which in turn impacts neighborhood property owners who are
dependent on the road for access. The increase in the number of property owners
accessing the private road may also result in disputes over upgrading and maintenance
responsibilities and tends to diminish the likelihood that the road will ever be upgraded
to public road standards. In this case, if the Variance were granted, one additional
property owner would regularly utilize the existing private road.
As discussed, the proposed 1.74-acre parcel will not have frontage along a public road,
but rather will be located adjacent to Reno Road (private). In order to meet the public
road frontage requirement of the Ordinance, the applicant would be required to
construct a public road almost 500 feet long according to County public road standards
from E. Reno Avenue to the proposed 1.74-acre parcel. Staff believes that this
requirement would be unreasonable because of the length of the road and cost to
construct the road to serve the single-family residence. An alternative would be to
propose property division from east to west (parallel to the north and south property
lines) which would provide over 171 feet of frontage for each parcel along Auberry
Road. This is not a reasonable alternative because the existing house would be
Staff Report – Page 7
bisected and the resulting parcel configuration would exceed the required 4:1 lot depth
to width ratio and would require a Variance.
Based on this information, staff believes that Findings 1 and 2 can be made with regard
to the road frontage portion of the request.
To address Finding 3, the applicant states that, “it is my intention to one day build a
home on this property of 1.74-acres to help preserve it. Any improvements in the area
will only enhance property values in the area, and increase safety by reducing fire
hazards through regular maintenance.”
As the parcel is located in the AE-20 Zone District, the cumulative and incremental
impact of land division and residential development should be taken into consideration.
An increase in population may conflict with normal farming practices. Should the
application be approved, a Right-to-Farm notice should be required, prior to the
recordation of the required map.
The project was routed to the Health Department for review and comment, the
Department indicates that the proposed parcel can support a water well and sewage
disposal system with complete replacement area.
Staff does not believe that the proposal will result in a negative impact to the properties
or public welfare within the vicinity of the subject property. Based on the aforementioned
information, staff believes that Finding 3 can be made with regard to parcel size.
With regard to impacts to the road and adjacent property owners who use Reno Road,
staff also notes that a County Service Area has been established for the maintenance of
Reno Road pursuant to the requirements of a previously approved mapping application,
and the road has been improved with pavement approximately 18 to 20 feet wide in
most areas. As discussed below, if this Variance is approved, the applicant, through the
required mapping application, will be required to annex to CSA 35 and improve his
proportional share of Reno Road.
Based on this information, staff believes that Finding 3 can be made with regard to the
road frontage request.
Access and Traffic
Auberry Road is an arterial road with between 66 feet and 78 feet of total road right-ofway across the frontage of the parcel. The required right-of-way is 53 feet from road
centerline to the subject parcel. An additional right-of-way dedication across the
frontage of the subject parcel is required in order to provide for this minimum and bring
the road up to arterial standards. If approved this issue will be addressed during the
required mapping procedure. To address policy and safety considerations staff has
included conditions to prohibit additional driveways onto Auberry Road.
Staff Report – Page 8
To address limitations identified in the General Plan section of the report, access to the
parcel must be off Reno Road. Development standards require public road frontage to
restrict the creation of landlocked parcels and to ensure that roads serving parcels are
properly constructed and maintained. The application includes the request to waive
public road frontage. If approved, the property will have to be annexed to CSA 35, Zone
AJ to participate in their pro-rata share of road maintenance, and the applicant will be
responsible for improving/constructing a portion of Reno Road. These items will be a
mandatory requirement through the required mapping application.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff believes that findings 1, 2 and 4 cannot be made with regard to the parcel size
request and recommends denial of Variance Application No. 3771. If the Commission
believes that the required Findings can be made, it should approve Variance Application
No. 3771 and adopt the Negative Declaration prepared for Initial Study Application No.
5026.
PLANNING COMMISSION MOTIONS:
Recommended Motion (denial action)
•
Move to determine that the required findings cannot be made and move to deny the
request.
•
Direct the secretary to prepare a resolution documenting the Commission’s action.
Alternative Motion (approval action)
•
Move to adopt the Negative Declaration prepared for Initial Study Application No.
5026.
•
Move to determine the required findings can be made (state basis for making
findings) and move to approve the application subject to the recommended
conditions.
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
1.
Division of the parcel shall be in substantial conformance with the site plan
approved by the Planning Commission.
2.
No new driveways shall be permitted accessing Auberry Road.
3.
Prior to the completion of a mapping procedure, an agreement incorporating the
provisions of the “Right-to-Farm” Notice (Ordinance Code Section 17.40.100)
shall be entered into with Fresno County.
Staff Report – Page 9
The following notes reference mandatory requirements of Fresno County or other
agencies and are provided as information to the project applicant.
1.
Division of the subject property is subject to the provisions of the Fresno County
Parcel Map Ordinance. For more information, contact the Development
Engineering Section of the Department of Public Works and Planning at (559)
262-4240.
2.
The Clovis Unified School District currently levies a fee of $2.53 per square foot
for residential development. New development on the subject property will be
subject to the fee in place at the time fee certificates are obtained.
3.
All storm water runoff from any new development shall remain on-site. Ponds in
excess of 18 inches shall be fenced.
4.
An encroachment permit will be required for any improvements within the County
right-of-way in connection with access to the existing parcel and / or connection
of Reno Road to Auberry Road.
5.
If any grading is proposed, a Grading and Drainage Plan along with a Grading
Permit Voucher will be require.
6.
In Fresno County, a test hole and inspection is required in all areas of the FriantKern Canal prior to the issuance of construction permits. The test hole
evaluation may result in a requirement for an engineered septic system. Such a
system, following an on-site investigation, must be designated and the
installation certified by a California registered geologist or a registered civil
engineer that is knowledgeable and experienced in the field of septic tank
leaching system and design.
Whenever possible, test hole procedures should be conducted during the Spring
run-off period in order to accurately assess seasonal high ground water
conditions.
7.
At such time the applicant or future property owner decides to construct a water
well, they will be required to apply for and obtain a Permit to Construct a Water
Well from the Fresno County Department of Community Health, Environmental
Health System. Please be advised that only those persons with a valid C-57
Contractor’s License may construct wells. For more information, contact the
Water Surveillance Program at (559) 445-3357.
JG:lb
G:\4360Devs&Pln\PROJSEC\PROJDOCS\VA\3700-3775\VA3771 sr.doc
Staff Report – Page 10